Tangible User Interfaces Seminar Vernetzte Systeme Prof. Friedemann - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Tangible User Interfaces Seminar Vernetzte Systeme Prof. Friedemann Mattern Von: Patrick Frigg Betreuer: Michael Rohs

Outline Introduction ToolStone Motivation Design Interaction Techniques Taxonomy for Tangible User Interfaces Examples The 2-D Tangibility Space TUI examples in the Taxonomy Conclusions

Introduction • Tangible, graspable, physical, embodied and others. • Tangible is the most broadly accepted expression. (Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Magazine: Introduction) “The use of physical objects as manipulability representations of information.”

Key Influences Tangible user interfaces (TUIs) have been a very active topic in human-computer interaction for much of the last decade. • Ubiquitous computing • Augmented reality • Bishop’s 1992 Marble Answering Machine.

Taking Advantage of TUIs • They can intuitively be used by non professionals. • TUIs dramatically extend the design space of traditional GUIs. • Shape, size, color, weight, smell, texture... • Make use of a human’s rich manipulation skills. • Chunks of physical operations.

Outline Introduction ToolStone Motivation Design Interaction Techniques Taxonomy for Tangible User Interfaces Examples The 2-D Tangibility Space TUI examples in the Taxonomy Conclusions

To Handle Complex Software • Complexity of software increases. • Many tool bars, scroll bars, pop-up menus or tool palettes. • Selection requires physical and visual efforts. • Every tool takes up screen space. • Bigger screens require more time-consuming mouse movements.

Free Your Screen and the Rest Will Follow • Make use of the non-dominant hand. • Physical tools allow use of a human’s rich manipulation skills. • Chunks of physical operation. • Select a tool by the way the user holds the device. � Rich-Action Input (RAI) • Visual Attention is not required. • Mouse movements are minimized.

An Effective Input Device: ToolStone • Jun Rekimoto. • Semi-6DOF input device. • Detect x-y position, orientation and touching face (tilting). • Perceive orientation by touch. • Small bar at one lower edge. • Width, height, depth are all different. • Device for the non-dominant hand in bimanual interfaces.

Interaction Techniques • Directions separated by 45 degrees. � 8 tool palettes • Flipping the stone. � 6 different set of tools • 8 × 6 = 48 different tool palettes selectable by physical action.

Visual Supply • ToolGlass like functionality. • Move tool palette in order to minimize mouse movements. • Labels around the tool palette indicate available functions attached to the same face. • Labels printed on ToolStone for novice users.

More Interaction Techniques Some interactions need to control parameters with a dimension < 2. E.g. color space (hue-saturation-brightness) Existing tools often force unintuitive operations because of the bad mapping of the parameters to the 2-D tool palette space.

More Interaction Techniques • Select color space. • Manipulate brightness with ToolStone. • Zooming and panning of the workspace. • Rotate to zoom move to scroll. • 3-D rotation of an object. • Move to change rotation axis. • Virtual camera control. • Dominant hand device available to change parameters.

Demo Movie

Outline Introduction ToolStone Motivation Design Interaction Techniques Taxonomy for Tangible User Interfaces Examples The 2-D Tangibility Space TUI examples in the Taxonomy Conclusions

A Taxonomy to Analyze Tangible Interfaces • Kenneth P. Fishkin TUIs have been largely an “I know one when I see one” field. • This work proceeds beyond “proof of concept” examples. � Provide a framework to compare works in the space.

Three Examples of TUIs - No1 • “The Great Dome” - Ishii & Ullmer (1997) • Augmented desktop displays a map. • Map changes the view accordingly to the movements of a model of the MIT Great Dome building on the desktop.

Three Examples of TUIs - No2 • “Shakepad” - Levin & Yarin (1999) • Key chain computer based device. • Display can be cleared by shaking.

Three Examples of TUIs - No3 • “ToonTown” - Singer et al. (1999) • Toon figures representing users of an audio chat system. • While moving the figures the audio levels are adjusted.

2-D Tangibility Space • The examples show how different tangible interfaces can be. • Fishkin found no useful binary characteristic function. Instead he sees “tangibility” as a multi-valued attribute. • 2 Dimensions more more Embodiment Embodiment tangible tangible ≠ better ≠ better Metaphor Metaphor

First Axis: Embodiment Extend the user thinks the states of the system being “inside” the object they are manipulating. • Full Embodiment Full • Most common type in the physical world. • E.g. shaking, tilting, bending a PDA. Nearby � The output is in the input device. Env. • Nearby • E.g. light pen altering the display Distant content. � Output is tightly coupled to the focus of input.

Embodiment cont. • Enivronmental • E.g. sound, ambient light or heat levels. � Output is around the user. • Distant • E.g. TV remote control. � Output is “over there” on a display or even in another room. • Visual attention has to be switched.

Second Axis: Metaphor Extend the user experiences the system effect of his action being analogous to the real-world effect of similar actions. Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb 1. None • E.g. command line interface or keyboard.

Metaphor cont. 2A. Noun • Shape, look, sound, feel analogy. But analogy ends with the appearance. (Interaction differs) � “An <X> in our system is like an <X> in the real world.” • E.g. “windows/desktop” systems or invoking actions by bringing objects close to the computer. 2B. Verb • Analogy of the act being performed. But shapes of the object are largely irrelevant. • “<X>-ing in our system is like <X>-ing in the real world.” • E.g. embodied user interfaces (next week)

Metaphor cont. 3. Noun and verb • “<X>-ing an <A> in our system is like <X>- ing something <A>-ish in the real world.” • E.g. drag-and-drop into the wastebasket (Debate on Apple’s floppy disk eject) 4. Full • No need for analogy because in the users mind the virtual system is the physical system. • E.g. pen computers (stylus is altering doc)

Taxonomy by Fishkin Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Analyzing the Examples Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Analyzing the Examples Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Analyzing the Examples Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Analyzing the Examples Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Analyzing the Examples Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Analyzing the Examples Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Even More Examples Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Even More Examples Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Even More Examples Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Even More Examples Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Back to the ToolStone • To which categories does the ToolStone belong to? • What is the level of embodiment? • Which metaphors are used?

Analyzing the ToolStone Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Analyzing the ToolStone Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and Verb Embodiment Full Nearby Env. Distant

Analyzing the ToolStone Metaphor None Noun Verb Noun Full and • Nearby Verb Embodiment • Tool palette is visible on the screen. Full • No serious visual distraction. Nearby • Verb • E.g. “Moving the stone is like moving the Env. camera.” • But shapes are not (yet) analogized to any Distant real-world physical object.

Outline Introduction ToolStone Motivation Design Interaction Techniques Taxonomy for Tangible User Interfaces Examples The 2-D Tangibility Space TUI examples in the Taxonomy Conclusions

Conclusions • ToolStone as a powerful extension for the non-dominant hand. • Simultaneously feedback important. • Taxonomy may not drawn sharp enough. • One need deep knowledge in the theory and in the project. • Single project get different values for its different functions.

Conclusions • Leaving the conceptional computer virtual world, taking steps into the physical world. • Away from computer-human interfaces into the realm of human interfaces in general. • Greater design space. Lower barrier for non- professionals. • ‘Tangible user interface’ might someday sound like ‘horseless carriage’. (D. Bishop)